Laver #2

I'd agree. They really should have spit the men and women up. As it really is a different game.

Not really sure why Laver's position is the subject of so much contention??

He did things that no else did and probably never will again.

Everyone speaks famously of the double Grand Slam. but really we should be speak of the triple. He did sweep the four major titles in the pro ranks in 1967 as well.

To me he exhibits everything that the greats should be measured on. Longevity, records held/broken, skill, consistency and adaptability over all surfaces and temperament under pressure.

Click to expand...

and how many of those 4 pro majors in 67 were on clay ? yes, zero. A fact conveniently glossed over .....

62 of course was the amateur one .... The best players, Rosewall and Hoad were in the pros , a fact highlighted by the beatdowns Hoad/Rosewall gave Laver when he joined the pros in 63

Both 62 and 67 great achievements of course, but neither of them a true Grand Slam ..... One thing to use them to show he was at the top of the game in amateurs first, then pros ( and then open era - 69 ) , another to equate the 62 and 67 to a Grand Slam .....

and how many of those 4 pro majors in 67 were on clay ? yes, zero. A fact conveniently glossed over .....

62 of course was the amateur one .... The best players, Rosewall and Hoad were in the pros , a fact highlighted by the beatdowns Hoad/Rosewall gave Laver when he joined the pros in 63

Both 62 and 67 great achievements of course, but neither of them a true Grand Slam ..... One thing to use them to show he was at the top of the game in amateurs first, then pros ( and then open era - 69 ) , another to equate the 62 and 67 to a Grand Slam .....

Click to expand...

The fact that none of the '67 pro slam titles were on clay is irrelevant. You forget that as great as the other pros like Gonzales, Rosewall etc were, they never accomplished the feat in the pro ranks. Only Laver did.

I agree with you that the '62 slam is less impressive for the reasons you stated but you have to admit that just in case Laver agreed with you, he went a did it again in '69 in case anyone may have doubted the first was a lucky fluke.

Laver won the Oklahoma World Pro on clay in 1967, too. This was the most preeminent clay event of the pros that year. I would echo Dean's last sentence in his fine post Nr. 45. For me, Laver has still the most complete record in mens tennis, regarding all aspects, and still is the measuring stick for all who will come.
It seems, that in the TV coverage, which i don't get, some respected experts like Collins and Barrett came to word. This would be good for the game. Their own lists would have more historical perspective. Collins 3 years ago, named his top five men: Tilden, Gonzalez, Laver, Borg, Sampras. If i remember it right from his book, then Steve Flink has Kramer and Gonzalez very high in his mens top five all time. So it must a bit strange for him, to find them at 34 and 35.

The fact that none of the '67 pro slam titles were on clay is irrelevant. You forget that as great as the other pros like Gonzales, Rosewall etc were, they never accomplished the feat in the pro ranks. Only Laver did.

Click to expand...

Rosewall won the French Pro, Wembley Pro and US Pro in 1963, and at the peak of his powers. Gonzales won the 1954 and 1955 US Pro titles, the only Pro majors in those years, and was utterly dominant on the pro tour in both years.

I agree with you that the '62 slam is less impressive for the reasons you stated but you have to admit that just in case Laver agreed with you, he went a did it again in '69 in case anyone may have doubted the first was a lucky fluke.

Click to expand...

Don't disagree. Just that I wouldn't place the 62 one on the same pedestal as the 69 one , its not that close even IMO

Rosewall won the French Pro, Wembley Pro and US Pro in 1963, and at the peak of his powers. Gonzales won the 1954 and 1955 US Pro titles, the only Pro majors in those years, and was utterly dominant on the pro tour in both years.

Click to expand...

Yeah i know i was just being facetious. :twisted: '67 was the only year that they held 4 pro majors with only addition of the Wimbledon Pro.

Anyway my point was that he seemed to have a habit of winning ALL the biggest titles in the same year. Something one else has done since.

Sure he struggled early on but by 1964 was No1 and it would be that way until 1971. A fact you seem to have conveniently glossed over.

Click to expand...

I haven't glossed over it. I pointed that out to illustrate the difference b/w pro and amateur fields at that time ..... Laver inspite of the Grand Slam in 62 wasn't even the best player in the world at that time .....probably no 3 behind Rosewall and Hoad ....

In his hth with Rosewall, Laver has in fact won more clay matches than he lost. I think, Mustard copied the list of the hth from wikipedia in a recent thread. Go to the years 1963-67, and look, which matches were played in Europe during the summer, at Geneva, Kitzbuhel,at the French, Belgian and Dutch seaside. Those were certainly clay court events. Cannes was played in the indoor pavillion. Rome in 1963 is difficult to tell, because it was played late in the year, and its not sure if on clay or indoors.

Gonzalez beat Rosewall badly in '57 and '60. So bad on the '60 tour they changed the rules to the game. Segura also beat him badly.
Pancho was the best for at least 8 years, probably longer. He retired at No. 1
When he came back in 1964 at age 36 he had a slight edge over Laver that year
Laver didn't become the best til '65 through '69
Rosewall was only No. 1 for about 3 years and wasn't very dominant over either Laver or Gonzales during that time.
Pancho beat Laver twice when he was 42
In 1967 at Wembly when Gonzalez was 38 he beat Rosewall took a 15 minute break and then beat Laver in 3 sets 10-8 in the finals
He beat Connors in LA Open at age 43 then the following year on his 44th Bday

Laver was a real humble guy and his arrogant quotes are about 1/100.000 of Federer´s.

He never said he was the best ever, and rubish like that because he know what opposition he had.Federer has very little knowledge of tennis history and I don´t think he ever cared of ( excpet from wearing those ridiculous and feminine white vest at Wimbledon...I thought he was going to marry there¡¡¡)

But most posters here don´t know anything about Laver...other than he was 5,7.

Click to expand...

Pity, and what's even worse is that some of the old-timers like you are worse, because you think anyone who places the modern great(s) above the older ones don't have any knowledge of olden times at all .....

I am more of a Federer admirar than those Fedfans are Laver´s admirers.I have posted some favourable comments on Federer.He is in my top 2 tiers for all time greats ( definitely, a top ten GOAT)

Click to expand...

oh jeez, I'm pretty sure that after winning 16 slams, getting to 23 grand slam semi-finals in a row , 18 of 19 slam finals in a row, winning 6 YECs, ending #1 5 times, winning Wimbledon and USO 5 times each consecutively, winning all the 4 slams at least once, federer would be honored that he is in your 2nd tier for all time greats :roll:

Here's a clue: Anyone placing Federer/Laver in anything other than top-tier is either clueless/hater.

Laver was a real humble guy and his arrogant quotes are about 1/100.000 of Federer´s.

He never said he was the best ever, and rubish like that because he know what opposition he had.Federer has very little knowledge of tennis history and I don´t think he ever cared of ( excpet from wearing those ridiculous and feminine white vest at Wimbledon...I thought he was going to marry there¡¡¡)

Click to expand...

What on earth does federer being arrogant or not or his knowledge of tennis history have to do with his achievements/greatness on court ?

In his hth with Rosewall, Laver has in fact won more clay matches than he lost. I think, Mustard copied the list of the hth from wikipedia in a recent thread. Go to the years 1963-67, and look, which matches were played in Europe during the summer, at Geneva, Kitzbuhel,at the French, Belgian and Dutch seaside. Those were certainly clay court events. Cannes was played in the indoor pavillion. Rome in 1963 is difficult to tell, because it was played late in the year, and its not sure if on clay or indoors.

Although a great player, really a distortion to argue Rosewall as a Goat. He was only No. 1 for a short period after Gonzalez retired. Never very dominant. Kramer said in his book that although Rosewall No. 1 in '64, it was very close btwn him, Gonzalez and Laver. Gonzalez was dominant pro for at least 9 years. Laver for about five. The fact that Rosewall did so well in the later part of his career should ask the question of how good the pros were he played when he was younger like Gonzalez, Hoad and Segura. Both Gonzalez and Segura beat Rosewall badly. Gonzalez always use to say what I did to Rosewall Segura did worse. Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Anyone that truly knows about those tours knows Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Gonzalez played everyone from Tilden to Borg and acknowledged Kramer as one of the best ever. Those that really know those players also know Kramer above Rosewall. To argue otherwise is to distort history just like the Tennis Channel just did. The truth is the most important pro tournament was the World Pro Championships here in the US. Now people put more importance to Wembly and French Clay Indoor than it carried back then

Although a great player, really a distortion to argue Rosewall as a Goat. He was only No. 1 for a short period after Gonzalez retired. Never very dominant. Kramer said in his book that although Rosewall No. 1 in '64, it was very close btwn him, Gonzalez and Laver. Gonzalez was dominant pro for at least 9 years. Laver for about five. The fact that Rosewall did so well in the later part of his career should ask the question of how good the pros were he played when he was younger like Gonzalez, Hoad and Segura. Both Gonzalez and Segura beat Rosewall badly. Gonzalez always use to say what I did to Rosewall Segura did worse. Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Anyone that truly knows about those tours knows Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Gonzalez played everyone from Tilden to Borg and acknowledged Kramer as one of the best ever. Those that really know those players also know Kramer above Rosewall. To argue otherwise is to distort history just like the Tennis Channel just did. The truth is the most important pro tournament was the World Pro Championships here in the US. Now people put more importance to Wembly and French Clay Indoor than it carried back then

IF the criteria for greatest player is lifetime achievement, for example, someone who excelled as a junior teenager amateur professional twenty-something thirty-something and so on into veteran categories and achieved top ranking at each level, that would point to the pick of the crop. And if that same person amassed a collection of singles titles in adult comp at the Majors across amateur professional and open eras that dwarfed all others, that would strongly suggest numero uno. And the guy is KenRosewall. Rod Laver comes closest but still falls short. True legends whose rivalry late in their careers electrified tv audiences in the US and enabled tennis to explode in the 1970s and beyond.

Rosewall had a few years of dominance, and Rosewall always had a habit of upsetting Hoad and Laver in big matches, and even beat Gonzales in the 1961 French Pro final. Rosewall is easily underrated, but he is certainly a GOAT contender. Gonzales, though, is the most underrated of any player in the history of tennis.

Of course, there is a possibility.But most posters here don´t know anything about Laver...other than he was 5,7.

Click to expand...

No, that's just your one track mind. People can be a fan of both players it has nothing to do with hate just because they put Fed is ahead. People haven't watched laver, but at least they have read his bio or story about him. But you? You are clueless about modern tennis.

It comes down to a 8-5 aggregate, in favor of Laver. For the clay results it was often important, which weather influenced the natural clay surface. Under rainy damp conditions like in Bournemouth (where the final was suspended for rain showers) and RG in 1968, usually Rosewall won the clay matches. When it was hot (as at RG 1969) and the court played faster, usually Laver won. Kitzbuhel, due to the high altitude in the Alps, always played quite fast.

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969. However, when you look at his Australians Open win, the draw was smaller, most of the players competing were Aussies, and Laver only had to win 4 matches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_-_Men's_Singles

That's the huge difference when compared to Fed's 16, where his draw are 128 with many countries competing. Keep in mind the most important criteria is "slam performance", and Fed has set many slam records including the 23 straight semi and 23 final appearance.

I'm sure the tennis channel and their crew have dissected in greater details than the rest of the members in here.

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969. However, when you look at his Australians Open win, the draw was smaller, most of the players competing were Aussies, and Laver only had to win 4 matches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_-_Men's_Singles

That's the huge difference when compared to Fed's 16, where his draw are 128 with many countries competing. Keep in mind the most important criteria is "slam performance", and Fed has set many slam records including the 23 straight semi and 23 final appearance.

I'm sure the tennis channel and their crew have dissected in greater details than the rest of the members in here.

No, that's just your one track mind. People can be a fan of both players it has nothing to do with hate just because they put Fed is ahead. People haven't watched laver, but at least they have read his bio or story about him. But you? You are clueless about modern tennis.

LOL...constant bashing Fed and you expect us to believe that? No, just no. It's pretty clear the combination of hate and ignorant is the reason why you put Fed as tier II great.

Click to expand...

I'm a Federer fan too! But, I've seen so many all time greats rise and fall that I'm able to put his greatness into perspective. You and other members of the ******* Society can't! It was exactly the same when Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Sampras were on top. When 5 or so greats have come and gone since Federer, you will be making the exact same observations to the "hero de jure" tards that I'm making to you now.

I thought about this and on the one hand, Graf has accomplished more. Yet, on the other, I think the greatest of all time should honour the best and most accomplished tennis players who will always be men by virtue of the label "best." I don't think it's sexist, just the truth. How could the greatest tennis player of all time be Graf when she'd lose to a challenger we've never heard of?

Click to expand...

This is why it was stupid beyond description for TC to combine the rankings of the men and women. They either have to rank them according to ability or according to accomplishemts within their genders. By accomplishment, Graf is greater than Federer by a large margin. By ability, Graf is not in the top 10,000.

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969.

Click to expand...

1967 was when Laver won the French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro and Wimbledon Pro. That achievement far exceeds the 1962 CYGS, which as you say, was achieved by an amateur Laver against an amateur-only field.

I thought about this and on the one hand, Graf has accomplished more. Yet, on the other, I think the greatest of all time should honour the best and most accomplished tennis players who will always be men by virtue of the label "best." I don't think it's sexist, just the truth. How could the greatest tennis player of all time be Graf when she'd lose to a challenger we've never heard of?

Click to expand...

That's why you can't combine the different rankings. By accomplishment I would say Margaret Court would probably exceed Federer's by perhaps two fold. Yet Federer as a teen would probably defeat Court at her best or frankly any women that ever lived. It's bothersome that they didn't have some sort of set criteria.

This is why it was stupid beyond description for TC to combine the rankings of the men and women. They either have to rank them according to ability or according to accomplishemts within their genders. By accomplishment, Graf is greater than Federer by a large margin. By ability, Graf is not in the top 10,000.

Click to expand...

There have been far greater amount of players by ability than Graf at her best than just 10000.

I'm a Federer fan too! But, I've seen so many all time greats rise and fall that I'm able to put his greatness into perspective. You and other members of the ******* Society can't! It was exactly the same when Connors, Borg, McEnroe and Sampras were on top. When 5 or so greats have come and gone since Federer, you will be making the exact same observations to the "hero de jure" tards that I'm making to you now.

And weren't you kept on diminishing Graf achievements when arguing with Joe Pike? come on, that doesn't sound like a knowledgable person. At least I'm honest and stay consistent for the past 20 yrs(especially 10 yrs).

And weren't you kept on diminishing Graf achievements when arguing with Joe Pike? come on, that doesn't sound like a knowledgable person. At least I'm honest and stay consistent for the past 20 yrs(especially 10 yrs).

Click to expand...

Irony is lost on you, TMF! Or, you're just a liar. I never genuinely put Federer in tier II. I've written that he is in my top 5 along with Laver, Sampras, Borg and Gonzales dozens of times, and you know it. Anything to the contrary I may have said to you was more about responding to you and your pathological obsession with Federer than Federer himself.

And, anything I ever wrote to Joe Pike was more about responding to Joe and his pathological obsession with Graf than Graf herself. I still say that peak Seles (who was deprived of reaching her true peak), was better than peak Graf. But, that's no insult to Graf.

Although a great player, really a distortion to argue Rosewall as a Goat. He was only No. 1 for a short period after Gonzalez retired. Never very dominant. Kramer said in his book that although Rosewall No. 1 in '64, it was very close btwn him, Gonzalez and Laver. Gonzalez was dominant pro for at least 9 years. Laver for about five. The fact that Rosewall did so well in the later part of his career should ask the question of how good the pros were he played when he was younger like Gonzalez, Hoad and Segura. Both Gonzalez and Segura beat Rosewall badly. Gonzalez always use to say what I did to Rosewall Segura did worse. Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Anyone that truly knows about those tours knows Rosewall wasn't on the same level as Gonzalez. Gonzalez played everyone from Tilden to Borg and acknowledged Kramer as one of the best ever. Those that really know those players also know Kramer above Rosewall. To argue otherwise is to distort history just like the Tennis Channel just did. The truth is the most important pro tournament was the World Pro Championships here in the US. Now people put more importance to Wembly and French Clay Indoor than it carried back then

Click to expand...

Agreed. While there's no question that Rosewall was a truly great player, his GOAT credentials tend to be exaggerated in this forum, partly for the reasons you state and partly because of the use of inappropriate metrics ("Rosewall won 23 majors! Wow!").

When Gonzales was in his prime in the 1950's there were many who hailed him as the greatest of all time, or were at least prepared to compare him with Tilden. When Open tennis was introduced - and certainly after Laver completed the Slam in 1969 - even more people said the same about him. There are not, however, many players or journalists who were prepared to claim Rosewall as the GOAT either when he was at his peak (late 50's and early 60's) or subsequently. Players such as Kramer, Gonzales, Laver and Newcombe all seemed to express more admiration for Lew Hoad.

I'm also skeptical about GOAT rankings in which all the leading contenders (Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver) were born within a decade of each other. Yes, there were giants in those days, but the tennis played in the 1950's and 1960's did not overshadow everything else before or since that era.

Irony is lost on you, TMF! Or, you're just a liar. I never genuinely put Federer in tier II. I've written that he is in my top 5 along with Laver, Sampras, Borg and Gonzales dozens of times, and you know it. Anything to the contrary I may have said to you was more about responding to you and your pathological obsession with Federer than Federer himself.

And, anything I ever wrote to Joe Pike was more about responding to Joe and his pathological obsession with Graf than Graf herself. I still say that peak Seles (who was deprived of reaching her true peak), was better than peak Graf. But, that's no insult to Graf.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about kiki who placed Fed in tier II. Since you always support/agree with him I put you in the same category with him. Also Joe Pike had to corrected kiki and you having no idea that Graf won a Golden Slam.

Hoad was clearly very talented, but I can't help but get the feeling that his star is blown up too much sometimes. Hoad was an excellent player but his career achievements are not close to the career achievements of Rosewall.

Pity, and what's even worse is that some of the old-timers like you are worse, because you think anyone who places the modern great(s) above the older ones don't have any knowledge of olden times at all .....

oh jeez, I'm pretty sure that after winning 16 slams, getting to 23 grand slam semi-finals in a row , 18 of 19 slam finals in a row, winning 6 YECs, ending #1 5 times, winning Wimbledon and USO 5 times each consecutively, winning all the 4 slams at least once, federer would be honored that he is in your 2nd tier for all time greats :roll:

Here's a clue: Anyone placing Federer/Laver in anything other than top-tier is either clueless/hater.

Click to expand...

Don´t worry about that.Even omre than that, Fed reigns over the whole WEAT (Weakest Era All Time).There, he is my undeniable nº 1

What on earth does federer being arrogant or not or his knowledge of tennis history have to do with his achievements/greatness on court ?

Click to expand...

No, but I justed made a clear point about their class difference.It may surprise you, but an ugly 5,7,r ed headed guy from a lost town in the world called Rockhampton (Queensland) can have tons more of class than the well dressed, nice looking, cosmopolite, Ads man guy from Basel, who is full of Rolex in his arm.

Rosewall had a few years of dominance, and Rosewall always had a habit of upsetting Hoad and Laver in big matches, and even beat Gonzales in the 1961 French Pro final. Rosewall is easily underrated, but he is certainly a GOAT contender. Gonzales, though, is the most underrated of any player in the history of tennis.

Click to expand...

I have little doubts that, in absolute talent terms, the tennis played by Gonzales-Laver-Hoad-Rosewall in the middle 60´s is the greatest ever played...at least, since the Cretaic Era

Hoad was clearly very talented, but I can't help but get the feeling that his star is blown up too much sometimes. Hoad was an excellent player but his career achievements are not close to the career achievements of Rosewall.

Click to expand...

I agree. Sometimes too much is made of players who look fantastic but don't do as much as other players who may have accomplished far more. Hoad was a gifted player and if he remained healthy perhaps he would have exceeded anyone who ever played or ever will play but Muscles Rosewall, who didn't look like the physical specimen that Hoad looked like far exceeded Hoad in overall accomplishments.

No, that's just your one track mind. People can be a fan of both players it has nothing to do with hate just because they put Fed is ahead. People haven't watched laver, but at least they have read his bio or story about him. But you? You are clueless about modern tennis.

LOL...constant bashing Fed and you expect us to believe that? No, just no. It's pretty clear the combination of hate and ignorant is the reason why you put Fed as tier II great.

Click to expand...

I have seen many matches from Federer but guys like you, abmk,apmerk,fedrulz,Djokovictowin et al have never seen Laver once.Thus. the whole addition of your opinions is worth one pubic hair of mine´s.

...oh¡ sorry, I also watched Emerson,Roche,Rosewall,Nastase....just a futile set of players...

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969. However, when you look at his Australians Open win, the draw was smaller, most of the players competing were Aussies, and Laver only had to win 4 matches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_-_Men's_Singles

That's the huge difference when compared to Fed's 16, where his draw are 128 with many countries competing. Keep in mind the most important criteria is "slam performance", and Fed has set many slam records including the 23 straight semi and 23 final appearance.

I'm sure the tennis channel and their crew have dissected in greater details than the rest of the members in here.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you forgot a SMALL detaill...when you beat in succesion Emerson,Stolle,Roche ( a classic, you should learn a bit about that) and Gimeno...well, there is no possible comparative than beating, say, LLodra,Tsonga,Murray and Berdich...if you can´t see it, you are a lost cause.

Agreed. While there's no question that Rosewall was a truly great player, his GOAT credentials tend to be exaggerated in this forum, partly for the reasons you state and partly because of the use of inappropriate metrics ("Rosewall won 23 majors! Wow!").

When Gonzales was in his prime in the 1950's there were many who hailed him as the greatest of all time, or were at least prepared to compare him with Tilden. When Open tennis was introduced - and certainly after Laver completed the Slam in 1969 - even more people said the same about him. There are not, however, many players or journalists who were prepared to claim Rosewall as the GOAT either when he was at his peak (late 50's and early 60's) or subsequently. Players such as Kramer, Gonzales, Laver and Newcombe all seemed to express more admiration for Lew Hoad.

I'm also skeptical about GOAT rankings in which all the leading contenders (Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver) were born within a decade of each other. Yes, there were giants in those days, but the tennis played in the 1950's and 1960's did not overshadow everything else before or since that era.

Click to expand...

To say that you need to have seen the greats, or at least a good set of them, of the 1960´s / 1950´s.With no evidence, comes no judgement.

I'm talking about kiki who placed Fed in tier II. Since you always support/agree with him I put you in the same category with him. Also Joe Pike had to corrected kiki and you having no idea that Graf won a Golden Slam.

Click to expand...

Limpin and me could have many subtle differences, but they would be at a level that is completley out of your reach, so you´d never catch it.

have you read my post on Graf´s shameful behaviour at her last Gran Slam ( 1999 FO)?? Since you deffended always Joe Pike, you can tell him wherever he is...

Hoad was clearly very talented, but I can't help but get the feeling that his star is blown up too much sometimes. Hoad was an excellent player but his career achievements are not close to the career achievements of Rosewall.

Click to expand...

Agreed.But one has to make an exception for those tons of walking talent¡¡¡ the true artrists and geniouses seldom get the recognition they deserve, until their work is put under the right perspective and focus.Which is not the case, here.

I agree. Sometimes too much is made of players who look fantastic but don't do as much as other players who may have accomplished far more. Hoad was a gifted player and if he remained healthy perhaps he would have exceeded anyone who ever played or ever will play but Muscles Rosewall, who didn't look like the physical specimen that Hoad looked like far exceeded Hoad in overall accomplishments.

Click to expand...

Do you know how well they complemented when they were called the WunderKids of Australian tennis? the summ of their talent may have surpassed anything before or later...

Laver's 2 grand slams was a great feat, but i they picked Fed's 16 slams triumph Laver for a good reason. Some of you just want to mention Laver "2 GS" but conveniently ignore the details. The 1962 was an amateur and obviously fans don't consider it the same level as 1969. However, when you look at his Australians Open win, the draw was smaller, most of the players competing were Aussies, and Laver only had to win 4 matches. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_-_Men's_Singles

That's the huge difference when compared to Fed's 16, where his draw are 128 with many countries competing. Keep in mind the most important criteria is "slam performance", and Fed has set many slam records including the 23 straight semi and 23 final appearance.

Agreed. While there's no question that Rosewall was a truly great player, his GOAT credentials tend to be exaggerated in this forum, partly for the reasons you state and partly because of the use of inappropriate metrics ("Rosewall won 23 majors! Wow!").

When Gonzales was in his prime in the 1950's there were many who hailed him as the greatest of all time, or were at least prepared to compare him with Tilden. When Open tennis was introduced - and certainly after Laver completed the Slam in 1969 - even more people said the same about him. There are not, however, many players or journalists who were prepared to claim Rosewall as the GOAT either when he was at his peak (late 50's and early 60's) or subsequently. Players such as Kramer, Gonzales, Laver and Newcombe all seemed to express more admiration for Lew Hoad.

I'm also skeptical about GOAT rankings in which all the leading contenders (Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver) were born within a decade of each other. Yes, there were giants in those days, but the tennis played in the 1950's and 1960's did not overshadow everything else before or since that era.

Click to expand...

No, if these metrics were being applied simplistically, then Rosewall would be automatically placed above Laver and everyone else. That is not true here, or anywhere. I think you're misreading how Rosewall is seen here. It's been my impression that those who use the 23 majors metric have Rosewall as a GOAT candidate but do not have him necessarily as GOAT (certainly not automatic GOAT); and while there are those who do regard him as GOAT, it's been my impression that they do not use the 23 metric.

All roughly speaking, of course; but the views here are a good deal more complex.

When Gonzales was in his prime in the 1950's there were many who hailed him as the greatest of all time, or were at least prepared to compare him with Tilden. When Open tennis was introduced - and certainly after Laver completed the Slam in 1969 - even more people said the same about him. There are not, however, many players or journalists who were prepared to claim Rosewall as the GOAT either when he was at his peak (late 50's and early 60's) or subsequently. Players such as Kramer, Gonzales, Laver and Newcombe all seemed to express more admiration for Lew Hoad.

Click to expand...

That's true about the admiration for Hoad, but look at the criteria. To express your greatest admiration for Hoad you obviously have to be talking about peak play -- not overall career. And look at the contrast, in that sense, between Hoad and Rosewall. Two polar opposites in that sense. Rosewall more than anyone, including Laver and Gonzalez, played at a high level day in and day out. And by high level I don't just mean Top Ten; he was among the handful of top players in the world from the late 50s to the early 70s. His average level of play, over time, is unmatched.

I think Rosewall is a very easy player to overlook or underestimate. Hoad is just the type of player not to get overlooked; just the kind to make lasting impressions on the memory -- but of course that's not the same as a great career.

I'm just talking about style of play, but another reason Rosewall is overlooked is that he spent so much time in the pros (11 years). In that sense he's right in between Gonzalez (19 years) and Laver (5 years). And that's where he ended up in Tennis Channel's list -- right in between them.

I'm also skeptical about GOAT rankings in which all the leading contenders (Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver) were born within a decade of each other. Yes, there were giants in those days, but the tennis played in the 1950's and 1960's did not overshadow everything else before or since that era.

Click to expand...

The thing is that the careers of those three men are not bound by those decades. Pancho was winning majors in the late 40s and was beating Laver in 1970 (also beat Connors later). Rosewall had major championship victories in the 70s. Laver's career, of the three men, had probably the least longevity: with him it's more about his two Slams. But in general we're talking about 3 men who have earned their GOAT candidacy partly by playing for so long. They won big championships for longer than most other great players, roughly speaking. Tilden had comparable longevity, but in GOAT lists where the three other men are listed, Tilden is also listed right up there.

I think it would be a greater problem if Laver, Rosewall and Pancho each just dominated for a relatively brief time (bound by the 50s and 60s, or perhaps just one of those decades), and all three were chosen as GOAT candidates. But Rosewall and Pancho are there precisely because they didn't play championship level tennis for anything like an ordinary length of time; while Laver is in there largely for his Grand Slam record (besides some good longevity, if not the greatest). There's no reason to think that these men are there merely because they came from the 50s/60s.

Hoad was clearly very talented, but I can't help but get the feeling that his star is blown up too much sometimes. Hoad was an excellent player but his career achievements are not close to the career achievements of Rosewall.

Click to expand...

Hoad had chronic back pain that limited his career severely. He also, reputedly, had a drinking problem arising out of his back pain.

I think it would be a greater problem if Laver, Rosewall and Pancho each just dominated for a relatively brief time (bound by the 50s and 60s, or perhaps just one of those decades), and all three were chosen as GOAT candidates. But Rosewall and Pancho are there precisely because they didn't play championship level tennis for anything like an ordinary length of time; while Laver is in there largely for his Grand Slam record (besides some good longevity, if not the greatest). There's no reason to think that these men are there merely because they came from the 50s/60s.

Gonzalez dominated the sport for 8 years. Longer than any other player. To be a candidate for GOAT seems you need to dominate a couple of years like Connors, Borg and McEnroe did. What year did Rosewall dominate? Also, Pancho was ranked 6th at age 41, before tie breakers. Keep in mind he retired about 5 times, once a 2 1/2 year period. Holds the record for oldest to win an ATP event. What Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall did in the late 60's speaks volumes to how much better the pros were.